Adam Antolski

ABOUT CIRCANA: everyone please take a seat and read this carefully it’s very important. Some people will call me a conspiracy theorist and that’s fine I don’t care. I’m simply going to go through a few points with you in a factual and logical way and in the end you can make up your own mind. No one is claiming that @Sony is secretly controlling every Circana report. The point is much simpler. Circana is a private company whose revenue comes from paying clients, not an independent public institution. Like any private market research firm it has business incentives and commercial relationships. It’s not a consoiracy theory, it’s a fact. Their data may be accurate, but the way reports are framed, which metrics are highlighted and what conclusions are emphasized can influence public perception. „But Circana is respected and trusted company“ Remember 2008? Credit rating agencies such as Moody’s, S&P and Fitch were considered independent, yet they gave top ratings to mortgage-backed securities before the 2008 financial crisis despite being paid by the very companies issuing them. Reputations did not prevent conflicts of interest. The same principle applies here. A company can publish accurate data while still deciding which metrics to emphasize, which trends deserve headlines and how results are framed. „But only 7 games soled more than 100.000 copies“ Market research data always depends on methodology. What exactly is being measured? The 100,000 sales threshold is also an arbitrary benchmark. A game selling 99,500 physical copies is treated the same as a game selling 10,000 copies, even though the difference is huge. Most importantly the statement needs more context. How many physical games were sold in total? What percentage of the market do they represent? What was the revenue generated? Without those details saying “only seven games reached this number” can create a much more negative impression than the full data might show. Don’t be stupid, think about it. The point is not that Circana’s data is wrong but that data needs proper context and methodology before conclusions about the future of physical games are made. Many media outlets published today very similar messages at almost the same time, which naturally raises questions about how coordinated these narratives can become. When people hear the word “control” they often assume it means companies are directly paying journalists or telling them what to write. That is not necessarily what happens. Influence can work in more subtle ways. For example, companies can decide which outlets receive early review codes, exclusive interviews, previews, or other forms of access. If a publisher feels a media outlet is being overly critical, it can choose to limit future access. This is not unique to @PlayStation many companies across different industries use access and relationships as part of their communication strategy. That does not mean every journalist is controlled or every report is manipulated, but it shows that companies can influence the media environment in ways that go beyond direct payments. Don’t believe everything you’re told. They want you to accept this narrative. They want you to believe that having no choice in where to buy your games is normal. Thank you #nodiscnobuy